Virginia Family Law Appeals

Another parental termination appeal fails for allegedly not requesting reversal etc.

APPEALS – PROCEDURE. The same issue as in TB v. Alexandria DHS, -- http://familylaw.typepad.com/virginiafamilylawappeals/2010/11/tb-v-dhs-gal-loses-parental-termination-appeal-failed-to-request-reversal.html -- seems to be dispositive in a simpler parental rights termination case, Artis v. City of Portsmouth Department of Social Services, unpublished, 25 VLW 726 (Court of Appeals 11/9/10). The opinion says that “because the father does not challenge the decision to terminate his residual parental rights under Va. Code 16.1-283(B), the issue of whether termination was warranted pursuant to subsection (c) is moot.”

Abused, troubled, disabled teen not competent to object to parent's rights termination.

EVIDENCE — WITNESS COMPETENCE — ABUSED, NEGLECTED, TROUBLED, IMMATURE TEEN — CHILD’S POWER TO BLOCK PARENTAL RIGHTS TERMINATION. The Court of Appeals upholds the decision that a 13-year-old is incompetent to testify in a parental rights termination case, and lists several things about this teenager that diminished her competence: she is a victim of sexual and physical abuse and neglect, and suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and oppositional defiant disorder. She “lacks problem solving skills, has low intelligence, has the moral age of a 5 or 6 year old, reads on a third-grade level, has poor attention to detail, is impulsive and fears for her own safety.” Since the mother was the appellant, presumably she was the one who called the child to testify. For the same reasons, the Court says the child does not qualify to block the termination under Code §16.1-283 G, which gives that power to a child who is 14 or over and not disabled, or is “otherwise of an age of discretion as determined by the trial court.” Donahue v. Roanoke City Department of Social Services, unpublished, 25 VLW 726 (Court of Appeals 11/9/10).